Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

I'm glad to see somebody from the U.K. has noticed that the U. K. government is licensing photographs under the Open Government License. However, not all government content is licensed under the license; it's not the U.S. For example, File:Cameron and Sarkozy 2.jpg, from the Prime Minister's office's Flickr stream is not explicitly under the OGL: the prime minister's website only says that material on "this site" is under the OGL.[1] Perhaps it would be good to contact the Prime Minister's office about this, and I've been thinking of doing so; maybe it would be better if somebody from the U.K. did, so might you want to? What I would point out is that CC-BY-NC-ND is not in the spirit of the OGL (which is specifically supposed to be similar to CC-BY), if that is in any way intended. And currently, material on number10.gov.uk is allowed for commercial use, while that on the Flickr stream is not, even though the photos on Flickr are often higher resolution versions of those on number10.gov.uk. —innotata 22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should upload Flickr photos under the OGL unless they are clearly said to be under it. Unless you want to contact the agencies and ask them, files like File:Jim Paice MP, Minister for Agriculture.jpg will have to go: all statements that content or information is under the OGL have been applied to individual websites or photostreams. —innotata 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm operating on the basis that as far as I understand the Public Sector Information licensing and the OGL, everything covered by Crown Copyright and published by central government is now OGL. The images on the Prime Minister's Office Flickr stream are split into those which are "PA copyright" (as in the Press Association) and those which are Crown Copyright. The Crown Copyright licensed ones fall under the OGL/PSI licensing rules on the National Archives website. They are additionally available under CC BY-NC-ND but the implicit OGL grant is applied to all Crown Copyright images even though some of them are also under existing CC licenses. This is equivalent to how many photos on Commons are available dual-licensed as GFDL and CC BY-SA for compatibility, even though the changes in GFDL 1.3 made it so that GFDL works on Wikimedia-hosted sites were granted CC BY-SA status. With those images, they were dual-licensed as Crown Copyright and CC BY-NC-ND, but as with GFDL, the government have, with the exceptions the PSI guidelines list, have made it so the OGL applies to a huge number of Crown Copyright works even if the websites don't say that. I'm in contact with some people who work on OGL matters, so I'll pass the query on to them. Hope that clears it up. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

p.s. (Damn, this copyright stuff is complicated.)

Where has anyone said that the OGL applies to all Crown Copyright works? Everything on the National Archives, including the text of the license itself says that it is an option for the government, and that one can use information said to be under the OGL. —innotata 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A number of people I've spoken to from the government. And statements like this (National Archive website):

Information owned by the Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence by authority of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, an official in The National Archives.

Combined with the fact that I've explained to people at the National Archive and the Cabinet Office what I've been doing on Commons and Wikisource with government publications, asked them if I'm in the letter and spirit of the OGL and the other requirements of the PSI framework, and they haven't said that this is against the OGL. If your interpretation of the OGL and PSI framework is correct, surely I would have been told off by one of those people? —Tom Morris (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

This seems to suggest that anything that was Crown copyright under the control of the Controller of the HMSO is now under the OGL. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What you gave doesn't say "anything in crown copyright is under the OGL", just that it can be. Everything I've found only says or implies that; we need good solid permission information on Commons. The National Archives doesn't seem to know what agencies say then; I expect lot of people in the U.K. government responsible for websites don't understand the OGL or copyright, as they say that CC-BY-SA (which is Commons OK) and BY-NC-ND are in the spirit of the OGL on Flickr, and say permission is needed for particular reuses of content here and there. —innotata 23:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think they are saying that BY-NC-ND is "in the spirit of the OGL", but that the OGL supersedes those licenses bust as it supersedes previous government licences like the click-use licence and so on. I'll contact the people I know at the National Archives and working in the civil service on these issues and see if we can actually get some clear discussions on it. If they aren't suitably licenced, we should definitely remove them. But if we can have a short period of grace for the government to hopefully give a response, we could then assume good faith on the potentially enormous supply of images and other media. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll wait at least. But I don't see how you can see what you see. And, yes, the potential for Wikimedia use is enormous—and even with the media known to be available under the OGL at present. —innotata 00:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to follow up: I have seeked clarification about the OGL issues from a contact who is heavily involved in working with the government on the OGL. The basic thrust is that my approach is correct but that the statements given on the National Archives site may be problematic. I'll e-mail the relevant people with this thread and with some suggestions about making the documentation around the OGL simpler. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard anything more yet? If nothing comes out, I'd like to start nominating for deletion the questionable images. —innotata 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

About Motd/2011-08-01, I made an addition to it and have a couple of things to say about it and the addition I made.

I thought that a frame that showed the boa and her teeth would be cool. That would be an example of how much I know but do not understand. Like, I know that these snakes squeeze their victims -- it is some of the macabre information that was exchanged among children when I was a child -- yet I still looked for a cool frame of a fanged snake grabbing the rat.

And more importantly than my failures (at least to this) is how I found the frame that I chose. At User_talk:Queeg/sawhorse I am using a template that was made (or shown to me) when I first started to create MOTD templates. It will display all of the frames for 10 seconds of video -- just tell it which minute and which set of 10 seconds to use. Then when you find the perfect frame, it is really very easy to paste the frame time into the thumbtime template.

A frame with its teeth showing would have been really cool (see 1).

Anyways, if you have any questions, suggestions or perhaps see other times when my knowledge has not made it to understanding, don't hesitate to let me know.

Also, nice choice -- which is my opinion. I have a preference for video that does not have urls embedded in them and hesitate when the license is embedded. It is a personal preference first, but it is also due to the fact that there are so many videos without such markings on them that to me, the insecure can wait until the unmarked videos have been exhausted. All of this is about my preferences and my agenda -- although some/much of this is based on criteria for photographs. -- Queeg (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think you noticed this, tacked to the end of our old discussion above: Have you heard anything more on the Open Government License yet? If nothing comes out, I'd like to start nominating for deletion the questionable images. —innotata 01:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't. I've sent another email to the relevant people to see if we can get this resolved. Just for your information, User:Jdforrester is a Commons admin and also works on data reuse stuff for the UK government. He's fully aware of what I've been doing with OGL images and I'm sure if we overstep the bounds of what is acceptable, he'll delete the images. I'm sorry this has taken such a long time to deal with, but I'm pretty confident I'm right about the OGL covering reuse in the way I've stated - I've been told it numerous times by people who know what they are talking about. It's just a matter of making sure it's on paper, either on the National Archives website or the Cabinet Office website or in an email to OTRS etc. So, please, hold the deletion off for now. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep on waiting for clarification … but not forever. Some images, as from the Prime Minister's Flickr stream, are candidates for speedy deletion, really (dated, for no permission), and I suggest you don't upload any more UK government images where it's not very clear they're under a free license, at least not a lot. —innotata 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A contact from the National Archives emailed me back today confirming that my interpretation of the OGL is correct and pointing to §8.1 of the About the OGL page, which reads:

Subject to the exclusions set out under point 8.2 below and in the Open Government Licence itself, the Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

This information includes:

information owned by the Crown previously made available under the Click-Use Licence (the PSI Licence and the Value Added Licence); and

source code and software originated by the Crown under Framework 1 of the NESTA agreements (see glossary and references) or similar agreements.

The material from the Number 10 Flickr stream (and other government photographs) is "subject to Crown copyright" and is thus available under the OGL unless it is exempted under §8.2 of the UK Government Licensing Framework (or the OGL itself). There is some material on the Number 10 Flickr stream which belongs to the Press Association, but any of the images which are marked under Crown Copyright are now licensed under the OGL per §8.1 ("The Controller's Offer") of the UK Government Licensing Framework.

I'll update the page on Meta, and probably add this information to Template:OGL. I'll also ask the contact at the National Archives if he would mind me forwarding on the email confidentially to a Commons OTRS person so we can have an OTRS ticket associated with OGL use. I apologise for the amount of time it has taken for me to get around to contacting the relevant parties. I hope this clarifies the OGL situation and we can carry on using Crown Copyright media licensed under the OGL on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Great to get this clarification. So, any crown copyright material not listed under the 'Crown information not covered by the Controller's offer' is under the OGL? (as looking at the texts of the Click-Use licences, it appears they covered everything under crown copyright except for the same exceptions in the Controller's offer.) —innotata 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am finding lots of contradictions to this on the websites of government bodies: the Scottish Government says their content on Flickr and YouTube are under the licenses given on those sites, usually non-commercial, and the Defence Ministry says permission for some ("Core") materials can be obtained under the Click-Use license the National Archives website says is not used any longer. —innotata 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out before, the Commisioner's Offer handles the information produced by the government regardless of previous arrangemenets. If I release a photo under GFDL and then also release it under CC BY-SA, there isn't "confusion" over the licencing. A government department releases information under the old click-use licence or under a restrictive CC licence like BY-NC-ND, and then the OGL comes along and complements/supersedes that - and you have the right to pick whether to use it under the terms of the CC licence or under the terms of the OGL. Just as it is for non-OGL licensed material... —Tom Morris (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but the Scottish Government says its content on Flickr and YouTube is not under the OGL, and the Defence Ministry says that only some of its content—not clearly defined—was ever under the Click-Use license (perhaps it just needs to be updated—I wouldn't upload anything from the MoD yet, since it could fall under the exceptions). —innotata 01:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the material released under Crown Copyright? (MoD: obviously yes; Scottish government: not sure)

Does the material not meet any exemptions in the OGL? (both, no)

If all three are satisfied, it is OGL. Of course, it would be nice if the government department were to change their Flickr stream to use CC BY as the OGL is functionally equivalent to CC BY. In practice, some departments are more responsive to others to sorting out copyright and licensing issues than others. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading "About the OGL" yet again, even more carefully, I'm not sure I get how they can say this confirms your reading. Material that was under the Click-USe licenses is now under the OGL, but is this everything except the exceptions? Nowhere at all is it said that the Controller's offer applies to all crown copyright works (apart from the exceptions from the Controller's offer): " … the Controller offers information which is subject" to copyright owned by the crown "for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence. This information includes …" What could the MoD mean by saying only some of their works were under the Click-Use licence? However, I don't think there should be ambiguity as to whether the Scottish Government would be covered—they are a crown body, and say that the content on their website is in crown copyright and under the OGL. —innotata 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"the Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence". Crown body + Crown copyright = OGL. After that it simply says that if it was previously covered by a Click-Use license, that has now been replaced by the OGL.

But "if covered by Click-Use, it's now covered by OGL" that doesn't imply "if it wasn't covered by the Click-Use License, it's not covered by the OGL". I'm not sure how you can't see the correctness of my interpretation: I've got a damn email from the person in charge of copyright at the National Archive who has read this very thread and explicitly pointed to the relevant sections backing up my interpretation. And in a few days, that email will hopefully be on file at OTRS. I know Commons takes copyright seriously to the point of paranoia, but you may be taking it to "the Bilderbergers shot JFK from the grassy knoll!!" levels of copyright paranoia. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes; this looks like a good enough confirmation. How ought we to modify the OGL template here? How about something on the lines of "This work is under the OGL, since it was explicitly released under the OGL [for non-crown bodies such as local governments] or because it was covered by the Controller of HMSO's offer (it is by a crown body and in crown copyright, and not among the exclusions from the offer, per [inline otrs link])"? (I don't know how exactly to put it for a license template text.) —innotata 15:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does need modification: just add a notice to the noinclude section of Template:OGL to explain the Controller's Offer. People uploading OGL files should be including sources for those files: if it is covered by the Controller's Offer, that will be obvious from the source, and if it isn't covered by the Controller's Offer, then it should have a link in the Information template to the source of the OGL permission. Some OGL material will need explicit releases, which can be done via OTRS. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. This means that works such as photos from the Prime Minister's Flickr stream under the controller's offer won't have any statements of permission in their descriptions. Anyhow, it turns out the delegation of authority from HMSO[2][3] exception to the OGL and Controller's offer includes almost everything by the Ministry of Defence. Presumably the 'Core' items could be under the OGL, but there's no way to tell what is 'Core', without contacting the ministry. —innotata 01:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be very difficult (;-)), Crown Copyright only accrues to a work created by an agent of the Crown in pursuit of their duties (in the same way that PD applies to US Federal workers' works). So it's rather more than "published" - if a commercial body creates something for a government body (e.g. a website design including graphics, or a freelance photographer) then even if they assign the rights to the government body that doesn't magically make the work a Crown Copyright work: instead, it would be a "normal" copyright work owned by the Crown. However, in those cases the guidance is for this to be provided under the OGL too.

Thanks! I'm in the process of uploading a total of 62 images from the anniversary, 32 of which were taking around Ground Zer, which will be in the Tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks category. The remaining thirty, which were taken at a ceremony in my home town of Union City, NJ, will be in a subcat I'll link to on that page. :-) Nightscream (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

File:Canoe Slalom - Kynan Maley.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the →Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I know that i have done wrong by posting that photo But can you please what should i do in that case. There is a picture on English wiki but if i use it on French wiki then it won't show their. I think you can help me on this. --Satdeep gill (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it. I'm not sure I have enough experience yet with the deletion process, but am certainly open to the possibility of running for adminship soon. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So I was looking at meta:OGL and saw your talk page mentioned so I figured I'd come here and pester you with a couple of questions. I read the discussion higher up on your page, but the verdict on what actually is OGL even when they don't say so is still escaping me.

Any chance you can help me figure this out? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The first case should be relatively easy. To quote the IPTC data: "On Fri 14 Jul 06, HMS ALBION at Greenwich, hosted Her Majesty The Queen, The First Sea Lord and numerous other VIPs to celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Marine Society and Sea Cadets. (MSSC)"

The IPTC data also notes that it is Crown Copyright. As it is hosted on the Ministry of Defence website, we can presume that the image was taken by someone working for the Ministry of Defence, and thus the copyright belongs to the Crown. The Open Government License is such that Crown Copyright works produced by government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, are licensed under the Open Government License except under the exemptions. The OGL Exemptions cover military insignia, of which there are a number, but the rules around de minimis would apply to those.

The copyright status of the National Archives website is irrelevant, as the National Archives contains material of a wide range of copyright statuses, just like any archive, library or museum. The National Archive's Web Archive contains all sorts of things including commercial websites, personal blogs from sites like LiveJournal etc.

What would be really nice is if we could find a MOD webpage where it is used in situ. I had a long poke around but couldn't find anything useful.

Anyway, I've uploaded the image to Commons: File:The Queen and Adm Jonathon Band in 2006.JPG. It was also on English Wikipedia as a non-free file. I've deleted it from English Wikipedia and replaced the only use with the new, high-res version on Commons.

I'll have a look at the second case tomorrow. It's now quite late and I need sleep. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this. Me stumbling across that file at enwiki tagged as non-free is what got me looking for free photos of Adm. Band and eventually led me to you. You'd think that since I happened to be the one that got around to creating the OGL template in the first place I'd have a better handle on it, but I don't for whatever reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the second case: I'd lean towards saying it probably is OGL. It's Crown Copyright alright, but an explicit OGL declaration is not required for it to be OGL. The only question that needs to be answered is whether the Maritime & Coastguard Agency counts as government. I'd say it seems quite probable that it would count. I'd upload it to Commons as OGL, and if someone doesn't think it is OGL, then we can have a debate about it in a deletion request. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:Thames Barrier, tunnel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

Comment I think you have to link the scope to the category where your picture has been uploaded... and to add (tunnel) because there are lots of outside views of the Barrier in the category. Thanks. --JLPC (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Monmouth is a bit of a trek for me, I'm afraid. I'd have to leave on Friday to make it, and I won't be able to take time off work for that.

As for dynamically generating OpenStreetMap images, I'd suggest the best way to do that is to just have a script and every X months, it just re-renders a chunk of the map and reuploads that image if it is more than a few pixels different from the existing image. I haven't got time to write such a script, I'm afraid. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; pity about Monmouth.

The images (all 15,000) would be generated from Cofnod's website / database in one go. No reupload for 10 years. But at least you say it's possible, and that great news. Thanks Tom. 2.28.228.113 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Julius Genachowski FCC.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Julius Genachowski FCC.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!